NationStates Jolt Archive

In light of the attention of the Superbowl Jubbly showm, and media circus that surrounds it still...

It begs the question of what IS..and what IS NOT indecent.

A breast is hardly the sinful, dirty, apparatus that some would like to believe.
Has Americas Puritanical roots made us prudes?

Most of us wouldnt say much of anything if we saw a mother breast feeding here baby on a bus would we?
So....why would we make a big deal out of this?

What is indecent to you...and why?

Intolerance. Also, people who get offended way too easily.

What's indecent? Putting on a porno at a family event.

preaching to impressionable children that nudity is wrong and sexuality is dirty qualifies as indecent in my book.

If Janet Jackson was in the mall and exposed her hooter to everyone, including little kids, she would have been arrested. So, yes, it is a big deal. People expect porno on Showtime, not networks.

Preaching to impressionable children that nudity is right and sexuality is cool qualifies as indecent in my book.

Nudity is not indecent, I don't think so.

hell, it's not the first time anyone's seen a boob...and trying to ban that on tv will only make it huger online.

mild nudity on tv versus rampant porno? hmm.....which is better?

I cant describe indecency but I know it when I see it. 8)

Nudity is not indecent, I don't think so.Indecent: Offensive to public moral values; immodest.Offensive to moral values... and immodest... yeah, I'd say flashing a crowd of a few million families counts as immodest and offensive to the majority's moral values ;)

If Janet Jackson was in the mall and exposed her hooter to everyone, including little kids, she would have been arrested. So, yes, it is a big deal. People expect porno on Showtime, not networks.

If two seconds of blurry, half scene booby is pornography, I can't imagine what you think of those breast examine commercials. :roll:

Cut the rhetoric. Regardless of whether or not the nudity was intentional, it hardly constitutes pornography by any reasonable definition.

If Janet Jackson was in the mall and exposed her hooter to everyone, including little kids, she would have been arrested. So, yes, it is a big deal. People expect porno on Showtime, not networks.

If two seconds of blurry, half scene booby is pornography, I can't imagine what you think of those breast examine commercials. :roll:

Cut the rhetoric. Regardless of whether or not the nudity was intentional, it hardly constitutes pornography by any reasonable definition.Breast Examine commercials? I'm pretty sure they don't show tits on commercials :P

Nudity is not indecent, I don't think so.Indecent: Offensive to public moral values; immodest.Offensive to moral values... and immodest... yeah, I'd say flashing a crowd of a few million families counts as immodest and offensive to the majority's moral values ;)

heh...too bad most of the liked it. i think she should just stop fooling around and get her ass in playboy-i mean, everyone is waiting for it. it could only help her career.

Nudity is not indecent, I don't think so.Indecent: Offensive to public moral values; immodest.Offensive to moral values... and immodest... yeah, I'd say flashing a crowd of a few million families counts as immodest and offensive to the majority's moral values ;)

Let me ask you this:

what about the statue.."Blind Justice"?

Exposed breast.....thats art........whats the difference?

If Janet Jackson was in the mall and exposed her hooter to everyone, including little kids, she would have been arrested. So, yes, it is a big deal. People expect porno on Showtime, not networks.

If two seconds of blurry, half scene booby is pornography, I can't imagine what you think of those breast examine commercials. :roll:

Cut the rhetoric. Regardless of whether or not the nudity was intentional, it hardly constitutes pornography by any reasonable definition.Yet another word for me to define :)

Pornography: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. Yeah, tell me there aren't people jerkin off to the superbowl screenshots.

Nudity is not indecent, I don't think so.Indecent: Offensive to public moral values; immodest.Offensive to moral values... and immodest... yeah, I'd say flashing a crowd of a few million families counts as immodest and offensive to the majority's moral values ;)

heh...too bad most of the liked it. i think she should just stop fooling around and get her ass in playboy-i mean, everyone is waiting for it. it could only help her career.Janet's boobs belong in playboy, not on Daytime TV, when dads are watching the game with their sons.

Nudity is not indecent, I don't think so.Indecent: Offensive to public moral values; immodest.Offensive to moral values... and immodest... yeah, I'd say flashing a crowd of a few million families counts as immodest and offensive to the majority's moral values ;)

Let me ask you this:

what about the statue.."Blind Justice"?

Exposed breast.....thats art........whats the difference?That would be art. Flashing your tits at mardi gras, let alone on girls gone wild, let alone the superbowl, is not art ;)

Indecent? Tax cuts for the rich when we're running a massive deficit with no end in sight and while health care is unavailable or unaffordable for 40 million+ people in the richest nation on earth. Indecent is giving government contracts to companies that ship their jobs overseas and their headquarters offshore in order to avoid taxes.

it's a bonding experience, and a good time for the dads to explain the wonders of sex to their kids.

"now, when a man loves a woman very much...."

i think it's a brilliant opportunity.

Nudity is not indecent, I don't think so.Indecent: Offensive to public moral values; immodest.Offensive to moral values... and immodest... yeah, I'd say flashing a crowd of a few million families counts as immodest and offensive to the majority's moral values ;)

Let me ask you this:

what about the statue.."Blind Justice"?

Exposed breast.....thats art........whats the difference?That would be art. Flashing your tits at mardi gras, let alone on girls gone wild, let alone the superbowl, is not art ;)

It was a physical display in a musical show.......thats art.
It was intended as part of a performance.

the network was offended because if anyone will flash a covered boob it will feels it has exclusive rights to

Indecent? Tax cuts for the rich when we're running a massive deficit with no end in sight and while health care is unavailable or unaffordable for 40 million+ people in the richest nation on earth. Indecent is giving government contracts to companies that ship their jobs overseas and their headquarters offshore in order to avoid taxes.
Figures you would try to find a way to bring Bush into this. :roll:

Pornography: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. Yeah, tell me there aren't people jerkin off to the superbowl screenshots.

I don't that applies. Janet's exposure (if it was indeed intentional) was not intended primarily to arouse, but to shock or, perhaps at most, titilate. If people want to jerk off to it, that's there buisness, but if that makes it pornography than you better call the Sears catalogue or maybe National Geographic pornographic too. Actually, considering the vast number of truly bizarre fetishes, nearly anything could be concivably jerked off to by somebody.

Indecent? Tax cuts for the rich when we're running a massive deficit with no end in sight and while health care is unavailable or unaffordable for 40 million+ people in the richest nation on earth. Indecent is giving government contracts to companies that ship their jobs overseas and their headquarters offshore in order to avoid taxes.
Figures you would try to find a way to bring Bush into this. :roll: He does make a good point though.

Indecent? Tax cuts for the rich when we're running a massive deficit with no end in sight and while health care is unavailable or unaffordable for 40 million+ people in the richest nation on earth. Indecent is giving government contracts to companies that ship their jobs overseas and their headquarters offshore in order to avoid taxes.
Figures you would try to find a way to bring Bush into this. :roll: He does make a good point though.
Not this time.

It's a freaking part of the human body! Most people have seen more than that, and thought nothing of it.

Nudity is not indecent, I don't think so.Indecent: Offensive to public moral values; immodest.Offensive to moral values... and immodest... yeah, I'd say flashing a crowd of a few million families counts as immodest and offensive to the majority's moral values ;)

Let me ask you this:

what about the statue.."Blind Justice"?

Exposed breast.....thats art........whats the difference?That would be art. Flashing your tits at mardi gras, let alone on girls gone wild, let alone the superbowl, is not art ;)

It was a physical display in a musical show.......thats art.
It was intended as part of a performance.The whole performance was lewd and immoral... it looked like something reserved for late-night BET or MTV... oh wait, I guess that explains why MTV isn't gonna do the show anymore ;) CBS was stupid for hiring them in the first place.

They hired MTV, they should have known they were going to do something offensive.

Indecent? Tax cuts for the rich when we're running a massive deficit with no end in sight and while health care is unavailable or unaffordable for 40 million+ people in the richest nation on earth. Indecent is giving government contracts to companies that ship their jobs overseas and their headquarters offshore in order to avoid taxes.
Figures you would try to find a way to bring Bush into this. :roll:I didn't mention Bush, but if you agree that the shoe fits....















Busted, Snubis. :lol:

oh hell, why is her boob so special? what about lil kim, who went to that awards show with only a little pastey thing on her nipple? some lady jiggled her boob, and there wasn't even as much scandal as there is now!

A BOOB IS A BOOB! YOU'VE ALL SUCKED ONE AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER!

oh hell, why is her boob so special? what about lil kim, who went to that awards show with only a little pastey thing on her nipple? some lady jiggled her boob, and there wasn't even as much scandal as there is now!

A BOOB IS A BOOB! YOU'VE ALL SUCKED ONE AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER!And probably enjoyed it on some level.

Pornography: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. Yeah, tell me there aren't people jerkin off to the superbowl screenshots.

I don't that applies. Janet's exposure (if it was indeed intentional) was not intended primarily to arouse, but to shock or, perhaps at most, titilate. If people want to jerk off to it, that's there buisness, but if that makes it pornography than you better call the Sears catalogue or maybe National Geographic pornographic too. Actually, considering the vast number of truly bizarre fetishes, nearly anything could be concivably jerked off to by somebody.Oh, it wasn't for shock or arousal? Ok then, what was it for?

Indecent? Tax cuts for the rich when we're running a massive deficit with no end in sight and while health care is unavailable or unaffordable for 40 million+ people in the richest nation on earth. Indecent is giving government contracts to companies that ship their jobs overseas and their headquarters offshore in order to avoid taxes.
Figures you would try to find a way to bring Bush into this. :roll:I didn't mention Bush, but if you agree that the shoe fits....















Busted, Snubis. :lol:

ROFLMAO!!!!!

dude, Snubis, that was priceless. you totally just burned yourself hardcore. you made my day. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Again...this goes back to the thread subject.....


What is ART.....and what is "indecent"?

who has the right to say?

Also..does anyone know exactly what time the jubbly was shown?

(EST.)

Oh, it wasn't for shock or arousal? Ok then, what was it for?

I said it may have been to shock but note: shock does not equal pronography (otherwise, the Shock and Awe campaign would have made much better viewing :wink: )

I think a more obvious conclusion would have been to entertain or amuse.


Also, by your definition above, we shouldn't lead cheerleaders be shown on TV, as they are clearly intended to arouse.

First of all, CBS (or whatever network, I didn't watch it) is a private company, and people pay to have it in their homes. We have freedom of the press, why not freedom of the air (Oh, wait, that's cable. It doesn't even use the public bands and people have to wire it into their homes). If you think a censored breast is too much for your child, then don't let them watch CBS (or whatever, as appropriate), or play violent video games, or watch R movies, or use bad language. If that's your thing--and all the more power to you if it is--you should practice responsible parenting, not ask your government to do it for you (and everyone else at the same time, all of whom might not agree with you). Which brings me to another point: what the HELL is decency? It may be true that most Americans consider public nudity offensive. It may also true that some Americans consider Islam offensive. And some hate black people. And some hate women, men, gays, Catholics, Jews, and Frenchmen. Should we ban all of those too? Frankly, I see no difference between criminalizing red t-shirts and banning any lack of clothing. Neither contains an iota of logic, and each establishes a clearly unsustainable precedent. If we start with banning a breast, we'll end up with those militant, radical schools that teach perfectly innocent Islamic boys how and what to hate.

Indecent? Tax cuts for the rich when we're running a massive deficit with no end in sight and while health care is unavailable or unaffordable for 40 million+ people in the richest nation on earth. Indecent is giving government contracts to companies that ship their jobs overseas and their headquarters offshore in order to avoid taxes.
Figures you would try to find a way to bring Bush into this. :roll:I didn't mention Bush, but if you agree that the shoe fits....
Just because you were telling your usual anti-Bush lies without mentioning his name doesn't mean I'm clueless about who you were referring too. :roll:

Can I just compromise and ONLY hate Gay, Catholic Frenchmen?

Note: I am clearly not stating an opinion because I have none, but I must propose a contradiction to a debate.

Let me ask you this:
If you were the mother of a child of that age of seven, would you want your child seeing nudity on the television. The television, something in which access is unlimited unless you do not have one. You cannot padlock channels on a television, and if you can, please inform me because there are some channels I would like to padlock (ie. those damn channels that sell crap all day long).

I know you preach about nudity being legal, but let us face reality for just a moment. Nudity is illegal, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it. Therefore, going out to collect the morning paper without some clothes on could end you some time in jail or a nice "little" fine. It is indecent exposure, which means that it is offensive to the general public.

There may be a large amount of people supporting the legality of nudity, but an overwhelmingly even large amount do not support nudity. Hence, it is illegal.

Now, that the preaching has nothing to do with it, your seven year old child watches nudity on the television. He/She will begin to assume that it is alright to do. So, while in school the next day, he/she decides to go for a "waltz" around the classroom in his/her newfound hobby.

Is that indecent?

i think gay islam boobs are the worst. i just hate them so much!

Can I just compromise and ONLY hate Gay, Catholic Frenchmen?

yes, that's what makes freedom beautiful

Indecent? Tax cuts for the rich when we're running a massive deficit with no end in sight and while health care is unavailable or unaffordable for 40 million+ people in the richest nation on earth. Indecent is giving government contracts to companies that ship their jobs overseas and their headquarters offshore in order to avoid taxes.
Figures you would try to find a way to bring Bush into this. :roll:I didn't mention Bush, but if you agree that the shoe fits....
Just because you were telling your usual anti-Bush lies without mentioning his name doesn't mean I'm clueless about who you were referring too. :roll:What lies? Prove me wrong.

I was answering the question as to what is indecent--the situation I described would be indecent no matter who is in office at the time. You're the one who connected it to Bush--not me. Why did you do that Snubis?

Therefore, going out to collect the morning paper with some clothes on could end you some time in jail or a nice "little" fine. It is indecent exposure, which means that it is offensive to the general public.

WITH clothes on? that's a scary thought. who knew that clothes constituted indecent exposure?

This isnt a Bush Fans vs Reality thread......stay on topic.

i think i'll take a cue from the blue viper and remove my clothing so i don't get fined for indecent exposure.

And another round of thread streaking begins. :D

Indecent? Tax cuts for the rich when we're running a massive deficit with no end in sight and while health care is unavailable or unaffordable for 40 million+ people in the richest nation on earth. Indecent is giving government contracts to companies that ship their jobs overseas and their headquarters offshore in order to avoid taxes.
Figures you would try to find a way to bring Bush into this. :roll:I didn't mention Bush, but if you agree that the shoe fits....
Just because you were telling your usual anti-Bush lies without mentioning his name doesn't mean I'm clueless about who you were referring too. :roll:What lies? Prove me wrong.

I was answering the question as to what is indecent--the situation I described would be indecent no matter who is in office at the time. You're the one who connected it to Bush--not me. Why did you do that Snubis?
Whatever. I'm not getting into a semantics argument with you.

Therefore, going out to collect the morning paper with some clothes on could end you some time in jail or a nice "little" fine. It is indecent exposure, which means that it is offensive to the general public.

WITH clothes on? that's a scary thought. who knew that clothes constituted indecent exposure?

Whoops, slip up. Typing to fast to catch that one. Sorry. :wink:

so i assumed. but it made for a funny argument.

Yeah, I agree. Slip ups like that are quite humerous.

:lol:

It was much more amusing that way.

Note: I am clearly not stating an opinion because I have none, but I must propose a contradiction to a debate.

Let me ask you this:
If you were the mother of a child of that age of seven, would you want your child seeing nudity on the television. The television, something in which access is unlimited unless you do not have one. You cannot padlock channels on a television, and if you can, please inform me because there are some channels I would like to padlock (ie. those damn channels that sell crap all day long).

I know you preach about nudity being legal, but let us face reality for just a moment. Nudity is illegal, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it. Therefore, going out to collect the morning paper with some clothes on could end you some time in jail or a nice "little" fine. It is indecent exposure, which means that it is offensive to the general public.

There may be a large amount of people supporting the legality of nudity, but an overwhelmingly even large amount do not support nudity. Hence, it is illegal.

Now, that the preaching has nothing to do with it, your seven year old child watches nudity on the television. He/She will begin to assume that it is alright to do. So, while in school the next day, he/she decides to go for a "waltz" around the classroom in his/her newfound hobby.

Is that indecent?

You asked a civil question, so I'll give a civil answer. Yes, you can oust channels, just call your cable company. You are, in fact, correct about one thing: nudity is illegal. My argument is, however, that is shouldn't be. Also, it may be true that a large number of people like bannig it. Just as I have a natural right to choose my attire (I assume no one will argue that just because people hate candidate X *ahem* BUSH *ahem*, I can't wear his campaign advertising), so I have a natural right to dictate my lack thereof. Mass opinion should dictate our leaders, our culture, and ever whether little corner grocer gets boycotted, but it should not have a Constitutional say on my rights as a human being.

This isnt a Bush Fans vs Reality thread......stay on topic.Fine--if CBS had been all that concerned about the "family" nature of the halftime show, they wouldn't have had Janet Jackson singing a song with the lyric "Have to get you naked by the end of this song" in it in the first place. There's a lot of hypocrisy in this decision, and it's in the people from CBS who are acting righteously indignant.

Indecency is the fat guy in the speedo.

anyways, back on topic:

full nudity is different than a boob. i don't really want to see anything below the waist-save that for private time. but hell, people breastfeed in public, and that's neither indecent nor pornographic. it may disturb you, but hell, fat people disturb me, and it doesn't really matter. that's just a personal peeve.

bottom line, the FCC has rules, if you don't like 'em, go write a book where the FCC can't touch you. Jackson (or whoever's idea it was) broke the rules, they get punished... I guess the question is are those rules fair... if you don't think they are, you have every right to say so... just not on FCC airwaves :wink: or maybe you can find a clever way...

Garden gnomes disturb me. :shock:

they did until i saw amelie, and now i see them as comical.

Im on Eastern standard time....

The jubbly was seen at about what? 9:30 or so.....?

Why was "little Billy" up at that hour on a school night to get offended and disturbed by Janets dirty dirty breast anyway?

It is reasonable to expect to be able to watch network television without seeing hooters.

I also scare me. :shock:

if you don't like them you're an inhibited soul indeed. i bet if you could just get rid of that repression you would be terribly kinky.

Art: The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

was the boobage concious? Yep, they've admitted it wasn't just a 'wardrobe malfunction'. arangement of form, sure. affects the sense of beauty? I don't think so... sure, maybe Jackson's boob is beautiful, i didn't get a good look... but it didn't seem like art to me...

Is any other nudity justified? I dunno...

Im on Eastern standard time....

The jubbly was seen at about what? 9:30 or so.....?

Why was "little Billy" up at that hour on a school night to get offended and disturbed by Janets dirty dirty breast anyway?In all fairness, on the West Coast it was about 6:30, and every kid who could force his dad to watch the dreck called a halftime show was watching for Justin et al.

Is any other nudity justified? I dunno...

well, seeing as how you were probably created while your parents were nude, i would say so.

You asked a civil question, so I'll give a civil answer. Yes, you can oust channels, just call your cable company. You are, in fact, correct about one thing: nudity is illegal. My argument is, however, that is shouldn't be. Also, it may be true that a large number of people like bannig it. Just as I have a natural right to choose my attire (I assume no one will argue that just because people hate candidate X *ahem* BUSH *ahem*, I can't wear his campaign advertising), so I have a natural right to dictate my lack thereof. Mass opinion should dictate our leaders, our culture, and ever whether little corner grocer gets boycotted, but it should not have a Constitutional say on my rights as a human being.

Well, it was an example to say the least, whether it had flaws or not is not really the objective of it.

However, I think that our government has strayed to far from following any guidelines or the basic freedoms. There is much to say in this argument and I will not go into it because it takes way too much time to show my inevitable evidence in support of it. Anyway, the basic question is.....are there constitutional freedoms anymore?

Sure, the Constitution declares we have freedom of speech, religion, and the press, but do we really? Think about it before you answer. I know you want to believe we do, but do we really? I am not saying that we do or do not, but take a look at the for example about how twisted our society has become.

Also, further question to all, just so I know the standing points in this conversation. Are you liberal or conservative?

alright, I obviously wasn't clear enough. is any other nudity on tv justified? IS nude art on tv justified? is nude art justified? is art that contains swearing and insults justified? Ok, sorry, im just coming up with more questions to reiterate the question

Nudity should not be so taboo. The classical cultures had the right idea when they glorified it instead of shunning it.

Im on Eastern standard time....

The jubbly was seen at about what? 9:30 or so.....?

Why was "little Billy" up at that hour on a school night to get offended and disturbed by Janets dirty dirty breast anyway?In all fairness, on the West Coast it was about 6:30, and every kid who could force his dad to watch the dreck called a halftime show was watching for Justin et al.

Yah..I know about the three hour time difference ...I gots kin in Cali.

I was just thinking of the east coast...thats where most of the opposition has stemmed...

alright, I obviously wasn't clear enough. is any other nudity on tv justified? IS nude art on tv justified? is nude art justified? is art that contains swearing and insults justified? Ok, sorry, im just coming up with more questions to reiterate the questionOh--nudity is on tv in many other parts of the world, and they don't seem to have their civilizations crashing down around them.

alright, I obviously wasn't clear enough. is any other nudity on tv justified? IS nude art on tv justified? is nude art justified? is art that contains swearing and insults justified? Ok, sorry, im just coming up with more questions to reiterate the question

if nude art isn't appropriate i'm going to kill myself.

really, the human form is beautiful, and has served as artistic inspiration forever. plus, our bodies are natural-why should it be indecent to show them? why should we need to hide something that is functional and beautiful?

That is fine, sometimes you do not express your ideas the intended way at first. We are all human after all.

I really have no say on the topic, I am just here to through out some hypothetical situations, and to bring counter questions to the debate. That is usually what I am best at in any debate.

Incertonia- should annnnnything be restricted? what?

somebody answer my questions! they weren't hypothetical.

byyyyy the way, I'm not some right-wing Ashcroft lover. For God's sake, take the tarps off the Supreme Court. But Janet Jackson is not a statue in front of the Supreme Court. That's a living, breathing woman in there. If you think that was genuine art, and not an attention getting trick, or a mistake, i disagree...

Just another fake boob. wait thier were four the on stage.

:twisted:

alright, I obviously wasn't clear enough. is any other nudity on tv justified? IS nude art on tv justified? is nude art justified? is art that contains swearing and insults justified? Ok, sorry, im just coming up with more questions to reiterate the questionOh--nudity is on tv in many other parts of the world, and they don't seem to have their civilizations crashing down around them.

Good point.

If this were England....it would hardly have gotten a notice....

But.....this country was founded by people who were too uptight even for them.

Incertonia- should annnnnything be restricted? what?Oh, I wouldn't suggest that we start airing Girls Gone Wild on primetime, or that sex acts should be performed on basic cable or network tv, but honestly, parents need to take far more responsibility for what their kids watch on tv rather than expecting the networks to do it.

I have a teenage daughter, and I very closely monitored what she saw on tv. You know what I was more concerned about than nudity? Stupidity on television, and shows that idolize the rich and famous. Reality tv was never on in my house, and neither was anything starring the Olsen twins, Paris Hilton, or anything resembling that. I'd rather my daughter see a boob than see any of that crap.

alright, I obviously wasn't clear enough. is any other nudity on tv justified? IS nude art on tv justified? is nude art justified? is art that contains swearing and insults justified? Ok, sorry, im just coming up with more questions to reiterate the question

if nude art isn't appropriate i'm going to kill myself.

really, the human form is beautiful, and has served as artistic inspiration forever. plus, our bodies are natural-why should it be indecent to show them? why should we need to hide something that is functional and beautiful?We shouldn't hide it--simple enough.

My last girlfriend was indecent, by god you would not believe... :twisted:

way to kill this, champ. post your girlfriend's antics in another thread.

if you don't like them you're an inhibited soul indeed. i bet if you could just get rid of that repression you would be terribly kinky.

Better to be "inhibited" than the brainwashed slave of a sex worshipping culture.

meh, sex is sex and it's natural.

byyyyy the way, I'm not some right-wing Ashcroft lover. For God's sake, take the tarps off the Supreme Court. But Janet Jackson is not a statue in front of the Supreme Court. That's a living, breathing woman in there. If you think that was genuine art, and not an attention getting trick, or a mistake, i disagree...

I dont think it was either......im just providing an alternative viewpoint.
Personally I think Jackson is an attention whore, and that whole show was crap.
Her boobie had nothing to do with it.

The sexual bump and grind of the Jackson/Timberlake duet was far more objectional than her brief flash of semi-exposed flesh (I mean what was it, a whole second, maybe two). For that matter, how come I don't hear more people objecting to Kid Rock using the flag as a poncho? Now that was offensive, I'd rather see someone burn the flag in protest (at least they're acknowledging it represents something) than it reduced to a frivolous costume piece.

The sexual bump and grind of the Jackson/Timberlake duet was far more objectional than her brief flash of semi-exposed flesh (I mean what was it, a whole second, maybe two). For that matter, how come I don't hear more people objecting to Kid Rock using the flag as a poncho? Now that was offensive, I'd rather see someone burn the flag in protest (at least they're acknowledging it represents something) than it reduced to a frivolous costume piece.Actually, according to the law governing the use of the US flag, burning it is legal, while using it as a form of clothing is not. The law is just never enforced.

if you don't like them you're an inhibited soul indeed. i bet if you could just get rid of that repression you would be terribly kinky.

Better to be "inhibited" than the brainwashed slave of a sex worshipping culture.

the American Psychological Association disagrees with you :). but then, they're just evil, immoral scientists who are trying to take over the world with their rhetoric, so why should we believe their well-documented research over the opinions of internet personalities?

preaching to impressionable children that nudity is wrong and sexuality is dirty qualifies as indecent in my book.

AMEN

preaching to impressionable children that nudity is wrong and sexuality is dirty qualifies as indecent in my book.

AMEN

i think any preacher who tells a child that masturbation is a sin should be arrested for indecent exposure, for exposing the child to such an indecent moral system. :)

if we had only brought up our kids to understand the beauty of the human body and not the shame then this whole Janet Jackson thing would never have been an issue. the only reason people pull stunts like this is because they KNOW it will rile people up and get them talking...if nudity was viewed as natural (as it really is) then nobody would rise to the bait over stunts like this, and we could all get back to actual ISSUES.

anyone who thinks nudity should not be outlawed should go out RIGHT NOW and protest by streaking down the road with as many people as you can!!! Go, go go!! :D I hope I can promote civil disobedience here... if not... um... I was being sarcastic... :wink:

Hahaaaaaa! Wearing the American Flag is illegal? :o Wow... you wouldn't know it, looking around.... so much for that law.

By the way, im not questioning you, Incertonia, just surprised.

By the way, im not questioning you, Incertonia, just surprised.I can't find the exact part of the US code that states it, but this article (http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0402/29/m01.html) quotes Section 8 of the US Code as stating, among other things:
The flag should never be used as apparel, bedding or drapery.
and
The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. which means that 90+% of all political advertising is technically illegal.

I'm trying to decide on the most inapropriate use of the American flag I've seen. It's a toss up between the flag toilet seat I saw at wal-mart and the flag bug screens I see on SUV's and Pickups.

Kid Rock's US flag poncho at the Superbowl halftime show--the one overshadowed by Janet's boob--comes to mind as being a touch inappropriate.

Incertonia- should annnnnything be restricted? what?
Well, murder certainly should....

The problem with the whole indecency thing is when the goverment tries to dictate what it is, Right now it's about Howard Stern, Bubba the love sponge and Janet Jackson. But if we keep letting the Goverment decide it will soon be anyone with a diffrent opinion. One example is Senator McCain who wants to bash Rush Limbaugh. Wether you agrre with Rush or not, free speech is one of our founding principles. I shudder to think how much the goverment has tried to limit it in the name of "decency". And Im a republican btw

The problem with the whole indecency thing is when the goverment tries to dictate what it is, Right now it's about Howard Stern, Bubba the love sponge and Janet Jackson. But if we keep letting the Goverment decide it will soon be anyone with a diffrent opinion. One example is Senator McCain who wants to bash Rush Limbaugh. Wether you agrre with Rush or not, free speech is one of our founding principles. I shudder to think how much the goverment has tried to limit it in the name of "decency". And Im a republican btwThe ironic thing about all this is that it was the Republican dominated FCC that has fined Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge these huge amounts, and Limbaugh who is defending Stern on his radio show.

Indecent? Tax cuts for the rich when we're running a massive deficit with no end in sight and while health care is unavailable or unaffordable for 40 million+ people in the richest nation on earth. Indecent is giving government contracts to companies that ship their jobs overseas and their headquarters offshore in order to avoid taxes.

I just saw on MSN that Bush gives up to $100,00 writeoffs to every business that buys an American SUV. No wonder they're all over the place; they're free! (With our tax dollars). :evil:

The problem with the whole indecency thing is when the goverment tries to dictate what it is, Right now it's about Howard Stern, Bubba the love sponge and Janet Jackson. But if we keep letting the Goverment decide it will soon be anyone with a diffrent opinion. One example is Senator McCain who wants to bash Rush Limbaugh. Wether you agrre with Rush or not, free speech is one of our founding principles. I shudder to think how much the goverment has tried to limit it in the name of "decency". And Im a republican btw

Even if Rush didn't say a single thing, even if he never opened his mouth, I'd like to see him in the public pillory just because he's scum.

if you don't like them you're an inhibited soul indeed. i bet if you could just get rid of that repression you would be terribly kinky.

Better to be "inhibited" than the brainwashed slave of a sex worshipping culture.

the American Psychological Association disagrees with you :). but then, they're just evil, immoral scientists who are trying to take over the world with their rhetoric, so why should we believe their well-documented research over the opinions of internet personalities?
Psychologists are all crazy. Have you seen the APA documentation methods?!

Also, further question to all, just so I know the standing points in this conversation. Are you liberal or conservative?

I am a die-hard liberal American.

if you don't like them you're an inhibited soul indeed. i bet if you could just get rid of that repression you would be terribly kinky.

Better to be "inhibited" than the brainwashed slave of a sex worshipping culture.

the American Psychological Association disagrees with you :). but then, they're just evil, immoral scientists who are trying to take over the world with their rhetoric, so why should we believe their well-documented research over the opinions of internet personalities?
Psychologists are all crazy. Have you seen the APA documentation methods?!

The APA has lost credibility by becoming overly politicized.

HOLY GRAVE DIGGING BATMAN!!

having sex with a dead goat is indecent to me

I did not bother to read the entire thread but this is Pop-culture, and the sight of a womans breast is limited to movie rated "r" or Above It seems. Anywhere else it is controversy *Read:publicity*

Kind of A self seving point of Sh1T if you ask me.

Jim

Preaching to impressionable children that nudity is right and sexuality is cool qualifies as indecent in my book.

What's wrong with nudity? We all have the same bits (well, all women have certain bits and all men have certain others).

If the human body was created by God (as you've said you believe Raysia) how can it be obscene?

I think what Janet Jackson did was tacky and stupid and she should have gone to jail for it like any streaker would, not be let off just because she is famous. However, I just don't see why Western society (especially the US) is so hung up about nudity. The human body can be a beautiful thing. Look at all the sculptures of ancient Greek heroes, they're not obscene- depictions of nudity don't have to be overtly sexual.

alright, I obviously wasn't clear enough. is any other nudity on tv justified? IS nude art on tv justified? is nude art justified? is art that contains swearing and insults justified? Ok, sorry, im just coming up with more questions to reiterate the question

Is nudity on tv justified? I support the existance of a ratings system (thought I think the system of ratings on commercial tv we have here focus too much on nudity and not enough on violence when it must be more harmful for children to witness violence than consensual sex)

Is nude art justified? Well, I don't think art *needs* any justification. If artists want to express themselves they can. If you don't like it, you don't have to look at it.

indency is subjective, and consequently none of my buisness. I have my own, fairly conservative standards of decency but I"m not about to force them on others.

edit-

consent is necessary, obviously.

My problem with all this overexposure, and that includes MTV, is that it gets dull.

"Okay, I've seen all that before. Ho hum...what's new?"

So then we have to find something more eye-opening...


or not.

HOLY GRAVE DIGGING BATMAN!!

:D
Bump! the Batmobile ran over the Penguin!

I'm Swedish, myself, and people of my country in general are very laid-back when it comes to nudity. If something like that happened here, people would most likely find it more amusing than offensive (though the tabloids would still have a field day ). I mean, it was a two-second blurry shot of one breast! What's the big deal? I will never understand the general American (stereotype-warning!) view that gratuitous violence on TV is fine, as long as the people are properly dressed. :?